United States v. Robinson, 680 F.Supp.3d 737

Defendant Shaun Marqus Robinson is indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and moved to dismiss the indictment as unconstitutional.
The Court considered the pretrial constitutional challenge under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 (facial attack on the statute).
Robinson argued § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power and violates the Second Amendment under the Bruen framework.
The court found the Commerce Clause challenge foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent holding § 922(g)(1) has a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce.
Applying Bruen’s historical‑tradition test for Second Amendment claims, the Government presented historical sources (e.g., forfeiture and colonial/state disarmament laws) supporting categorical disarmament of untrustworthy persons and felons; the court concluded that history supports § 922(g)(1).
The Court denied Robinson’s motion to dismiss, holding his constitutional challenges lack merit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Commerce Clause validity of § 922(g)(1)	§ 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s commerce power	Robinson: possession by a felon does not substantially affect interstate commerce	Denied — Fifth Circuit precedent (e.g., Alcantar, Daugherty) forecloses the challenge; statute has sufficient nexus to commerce
Second Amendment facial challenge under Bruen	§ 922(g)(1) facially bans conduct protected by the Second Amendment	Robinson: Bruen requires historical‑tradition fit and § 922(g)(1) fails that test	Denied — Court applies Bruen and Salerno facial‑challenge standard; historical evidence supports felon disarmament, so statute passes constitutional muster

United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013) (Fifth Circuit: constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under the Commerce Clause upheld)
United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 1999) (Commerce Clause precedent cited)
United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513 (5th Cir. 2001) (rejecting Lopez/Morrison‑based Commerce Clause challenge to § 922(g)(1))
United States v. Schmidt, 487 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2007) (same)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (establishes historical‑tradition test for Second Amendment review)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes longstanding prohibitions on felons possessing firearms)
United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443 (5th Cir. 2023) (interprets Heller/Bruen language excluding historically stripped groups from "the people")
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial‑challenge standard: government may prevail by showing some set of circumstances where the Act is valid)
Range v. Attorney General, 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir. 2023) (post‑Bruen en banc decision addressing felon‑possession challenge)
Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019) (discussion supporting disarming dangerous felons under Second Amendment)
United States v. Fontenot, 665 F.3d 640 (5th Cir. 2011) (procedural precedent regarding review of indictment dismissal)